Cited by 112Online Learning and AnalyticsIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningBig Data and Business Intelligence

Learning analytics dashboards are increasingly becoming about learning and not just analytics - A systematic review

Open access
Paulsen, Lucas, Lindsay, Euan·2024·Education and Information Technologies

Abstract

This systematic review explores the emerging themes in the design and implementation of student-facing learning analytics dashboards in higher education. Learning Analytics has long been criticised for focusing too much on the analytics, and not enough on the learning. The review is then guided by an interest in whether these dashboards are still primarily analytics-driven or if they have become pedagogically informed over time. By mapping the identified themes of technological maturity, informing frameworks, affordances, data sources, and analytical levels over publications per year, the review identifies an emerging trajectory towards student-focused dashboards. These dashboards are informed by theory-oriented frameworks, designed to incorporate affordances that supporting student learning, and realised through integration of more than just activity data from learning management systems – allowing the dashboards to better support students' learnings processes. Based on this emerging trajectory, the review provides a series of design recommendations for student-focused dashboards that are connected to learning sciences as well as analytics.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10639-023-12401-4

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Studies frequently equated engagement with observable online behaviours, such as the number of clicks or time logged in, which predominantly captures only the behavioural aspect.

    “Studies frequently equated engagement with observable online behaviours, such as the number of clicks or time logged in, which predominantly captures only the behavioural aspect (Algayres & Triantafyllou, 2019;Paulsen & Lindsay, 2024).”

    From Unpacking student engagement in higher education learning analytics: a systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as Paulsen & Lindsay, 2024

    Section 3.4 (page not specified) reports that LMS activity logs were the most common data source in the reviewed dashboards, appearing in 26 of 39. That supports frequent reliance on observable online activity, but the paper does not say that studies equated engagement with clicks or time logged in, or explicitly assess those measures as capturing only behavioural engagement. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Reliance on static questionnaires has been increasingly questioned, as self-reported learning styles may not accurately reflect learners' actual study behaviors in digital environments.

    “However, the reliance on static questionnaires has been increasingly questioned, as selfreported learning styles may not accurately reflect learners' actual study behaviors in digital environments.”

    From AI for All: Adaptive, Accessible, and Inclusive Learning Experiences in the Age of Intelligent LMSs (2026) · cites this paper as [9]

    Section 3.4 (Data sources; page not provided) distinguishes LMS activity logs from student self-reported data, but does not assess whether the two agree. Searches for static questionnaires, learning styles, and the validity of self-reports found no passage questioning whether reported styles reflect study behavior in digital environments. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Discrepancies between self-reported and behavior-derived learning styles were explicitly identified, highlighting the fluid and context-dependent nature of learner preferences.

    “Importantly, discrepancies between self-reported and behavior-derived learning styles were explicitly identified, highlighting the fluid and context-dependent nature of learner preferences [8][9][10][11].”

    From AI for All: Adaptive, Accessible, and Inclusive Learning Experiences in the Age of Intelligent LMSs (2026) · cites this paper as [9]

    Section 3.5 lists self-reports and LMS activity as data sources, but does not compare self-reported with behavior-derived learning styles. Searches for that discrepancy and for context-dependent learner preferences found no passage in our copy addressing either point. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Paulsen, L., & Lindsay, E.
Affiliations
Aalborg University (DK)
Corresponding author
Paulsen, Lucas
Venue
Education and Information Technologies
Published
2024-01-05
Volume
29
Issue
11
Pages
14279-14308
ISSN
  • 1360-2357 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7608
OpenAlex
W4390616983
Cited by
111
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 68 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 9
FWCI
8.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Education and Information Technologies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • VBN Forskningsportal (Aalborg Universitet) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Aalborg University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Big Data and Business Intelligence
Keywords
learning analytics dashboards, higher education, learning sciences, virtual learning environments, learning analytics framework, affordances, data sources, levels of analysis, student learning support

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review